40. For this reason, the Respondent State submits that this Application should be declared inadmissible, for failure to meet the admissibility condition in relation to exhaustion of available local remedies. * 41. The Applicant did not respond to this objection. *** 42. The Court observes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose requirements are mirrored in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing States with the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility for the same.13 43. With regard to the exhaustion of local remedies, the Court notes that the Applicant’s case had been decided before the High Court of Tanzania, sitting at Tabora on 11 October 2013, and before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, both on the substantive appeal and on review on 15 March 2014 and 7 August 2017 respectively; the Court of Appeal being the highest judicial authority in the Respondent State. 44. In light of this, the Court considers that the Respondent State had an opportunity to address procedural issues, if any, arising from the Applicant’s trial that could result in a violation of the right to a fair trial.14 The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Court of Appeal was put in a position to examine the manner in which the High Court conducted the proceedings and assess 13 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 14 Hussein Ally v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 016/2018, Ruling of 22 September 2022 (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), § 48. 11